Revek:And how is it that the guy who wants in god we trust off the money is any different from the guy who want the nativity scene off the public land. To me, Both assholes. These things don't force you to go to church. They don't force you to believe. If it offends the eye then do not look upon it, My eyes

They're only asking government officials to stop violating the 1st Amendment prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion. It's not about feelings, it's about adherence to the supreme law of the land. How can a non-Christian expect due process at a courthouse covered in Christian labeling? How can I have faith that my government has my best interests in mind, if its very money is printed with a slogan for a religious group that has historically tortured and persecuted members of other religions?

Lionel Mandrake:Revek: That you come in talking about how atheist don't do this or don't' do that but the truth is that they just do different asshole things.

For example?

Revek: I just simply don't care how wrong you are about the tendency of atheist to be just as uncompromising in their quest to be... Well assholes

When are atheists uncompromising?

When they demand that the Constitution be applied equally to all groups? When they fight to keep "Intelligent Design" out of science textbooks? When, like one guy sues over "In God We Trust" on the money? OK, that guy's an ass, but I happen to agree it doesn't belong there. Nevertheless, that is like ONE guy. Unless he's your neighbor or a relative, you can easily ignore the whole thing.

What exactly do atheists do but talk on a TV that you can turn off, and write books you don't have to buy, and chat in threads that you don't have to read?

I always thought "E Pluribus Unum" made more sense on the money of a nation devoted to the theory of inclusion.

HotWingAgenda:They're only asking government officials to stop violating the 1st Amendment prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion. It's not about feelings, it's about adherence to the supreme law of the land. How can a non-Christian expect due process at a courthouse covered in Christian labeling? How can I have faith that my government has my best interests in mind, if its very money is printed with a slogan for a religious group that has historically tortured and persecuted members of other religions?

I think you think too seriously about these things. Just let it go in these cases and you'll be much happier. It is what it is and this fight is better reserved for textbooks and national policy.

HotWingAgenda:Revek: And how is it that the guy who wants in god we trust off the money is any different from the guy who want the nativity scene off the public land. To me, Both assholes. These things don't force you to go to church. They don't force you to believe. If it offends the eye then do not look upon it, My eyes

They're only asking government officials to stop violating the 1st Amendment prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion. It's not about feelings, it's about adherence to the supreme law of the land. How can a non-Christian expect due process at a courthouse covered in Christian labeling? How can I have faith that my government has my best interests in mind, if its very money is printed with a slogan for a religious group that has historically tortured and persecuted members of other religions?

Well said! Liberty and political freedoms are like muscles, if you don't use them, they shrink and go away. Putting up an "Anti-Nativity" isn't the point in itself, it's the flexing of religious freedoms, and pushing back against encroachment by the followers of a particular religion.

inglixthemad:Lionel Mandrake: Revek: That you come in talking about how atheist don't do this or don't' do that but the truth is that they just do different asshole things.

For example?

Revek: I just simply don't care how wrong you are about the tendency of atheist to be just as uncompromising in their quest to be... Well assholes

When are atheists uncompromising?

When they demand that the Constitution be applied equally to all groups? When they fight to keep "Intelligent Design" out of science textbooks? When, like one guy sues over "In God We Trust" on the money? OK, that guy's an ass, but I happen to agree it doesn't belong there. Nevertheless, that is like ONE guy. Unless he's your neighbor or a relative, you can easily ignore the whole thing.

What exactly do atheists do but talk on a TV that you can turn off, and write books you don't have to buy, and chat in threads that you don't have to read?

I always thought "E Pluribus Unum" made more sense on the money of a nation devoted to the theory of inclusion.

Coming on a Bicycle:Not discriminating against a group's rights to free speech, can /also/ be done in various other times of the year, right? In that way, as long as you keep the agenda open to anybody wanting to participate, you can have your nativity scene around christmas, and some Nietsche quote during, I don't know, october or something.

Yup. All or nothing.

But why just a quote? If they can put up a big cross, can I put up a statue of Nietzsche? Or an upside-down cross?

The best, easiest and most reasonable solution is to keep them all off public property. There is a HELL of a lot of private property for all that.

Lionel Mandrake:Revek: That you seek to tell us all how this unknown thing is this way rather than that way. In this respect you are identical to the theist. And how is it that the guy who wants in god we trust off the money is any different from the guy who want the nativity scene off the public land. To me, Both assholes. These things don't force you to go to church. They don't force you to believe. If it offends the eye then do not look upon it, My eyes see it all with equal doubt and I am not offended.

Boy, you like to generalize don't you?

Atheists are not trying to put non-science into science classes. They are not trying to put up monuments to E=mc2 or the laws of thermodynamics. Atheists do not knock on your door.

Everything an atheist does is easily not read, not watched, not listened to or walked away from.

Atheist are trying to convince peaceful people who are not trying to knock on your door that they are right and theist are wrong without having any proof they are right. Sound familiar? While you are worrying about them trying to take the science out of schools you should note they usually fail. On a bell curve atheist are at one end and the theist are at the other while most are somewhere in between. I find peace is usually in the middle.

Living in Canada, when I (rarely) happen to mention to a religious person that I don't believe there is a God I don't get more than a "meh", so I don't understand why some atheists in the US seem to be so aggressive. But what I understand even less is the attitude that a lot of religious people in the States seem to have towards atheists. If you honestly believe that here is a God who loves you and will accept you into Heaven, but will send all these dirty non-believers to Hell, where is all the anger coming from? Shouldn't there be more pity than condescension, more love than hate? I know that if I believed I knew the ultimate nature of the Universe I'd feel a lot more secure. So... what's up with that?

gadian:HotWingAgenda: They're only asking government officials to stop violating the 1st Amendment prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion. It's not about feelings, it's about adherence to the supreme law of the land. How can a non-Christian expect due process at a courthouse covered in Christian labeling? How can I have faith that my government has my best interests in mind, if its very money is printed with a slogan for a religious group that has historically tortured and persecuted members of other religions?

I think you think too seriously about these things. Just let it go in these cases and you'll be much happier. It is what it is and this fight is better reserved for textbooks and national policy.

That's the sort of attitude the typical German citizen had about Nazis, right up until they started grabbing people off the streets. At least, that's how my grandmother described it to me.

I LIKE the lottery idea in the article. Random chance for limited space = nondiscrimination for Constitutional purposes.

Personally, I'm happy that there was a clustering if we assume all display applications can be placed into binary choices (Pro-theist & Anti-theist). A perfect distribution proportional to the entrants is a major red flag for a small scale, limited trial data run. A lopsided skewing shows randomness, and randomness is fair.

Those damn atheists screwed up an opportunity for the Christians to get their way like they always do. If you have a problem with the atheist pointing out he has a right, too...then I really don't know what to say. He didn't try to tear down the displays (like someone did last year to the atheist displays) and he went through the proper legal channels to receive a result that fits with expected constitutional rights.

Saying "he sure is an asshole" seems pretty short sighted when people of non faith are constantly fighting an uphill and sometimes losing battle.

I'll find issue with this fight when there are stories of atheists interrupting church sermons at midnight mass or something

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:I LIKE the lottery idea in the article. Random chance for limited space = nondiscrimination for Constitutional purposes.

That's what they did last year, and the local Christian groups made a huge fuss and ended up suing the city, which led to the city cancelling it entirely this year because they were tired of getting shiat on.

Lionel Mandrake:The Supreme Court has ruled that when the government opens up public property to private citizens - when it creates a public forum for speech - it cannot discriminate in favor of some viewpoints and against others.

So, STFU about your oppression and the WAR ON CHRISTMAS™ and pack up your nativity scenes and take them somewhere private. I bet your church would let you set up a creche on their property. Why, I bet any number of individuals and businesses would gladly let you set up your displays on their property.

STOP SETTING THIS SHIAT UP ON PUBLIC PROPERTY

While this is all technically correct, I still find it a bit sad. I consider myself agnostic, but I still grew up in a church doing Christmas plays and what not. Nativity scenes are part and parcel of Christmas, just like a Christmas tree, egg nog, turkey and ham dinners, and Christmas music talking about Jesus. Perhaps some or all of these things don't apply to your Christmas, or maybe you don't celebrate or even recognize Christmas in any way, but that doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it.

Nativity scenes inspire warm feelings of remembrance and tradition in many people, and public grounds are a great place to put them because so many people can enjoy them in a common locale. Now the laws are correct, it wouldn't be right to allow a pro-Christ display without allowing an anti-Christ display as well. However I think there should also be some sort of a "don't be a farking asshole" law that judges the intent of such a display or something. A nativity scene is most likely meant to inspire and spread happiness and remembrance, whereas an anti-Christ display would most likely be intended to upset people, or at least not have warm-fuzzies as the reasoning behind it, arguments about indoctrination or whatever regarding a nativity scene aside.

Okay so religion has done a whole lot of bad things. There are assholes that are religious. There are also assholes that are non religious, and every other potential permutation of a human being can also consist of an asshole. I bet somebody thought Ghandi was a real piece of shiat. Unfortunately for you atheists, theists still comprise the majority so there tends to be more assholes that claim religion than otherwise, but that doesn't mean you need to work extra hard to represent the other side, or to ruin a holiday (holy-day, by the way, religion is sorta the reason you have the day off) traditionally meant to spread warmth cheer and good tidings.

If you want to be a grinch and refrain from enjoying the festivities that's fine, but nobody's hurting you with it so how about just being a decent human being for about a month a year? If you are being hurt by it, or if some person or group is doing something decidedly unmagnanimous, then by all means shut that shiat down. But until then how about a little live and let live where you don't piss in someone's corn flakes just because you don't like what some ignorant rednecks in Texas are doing to the education system.

Eddie Ate Dynamite:Lionel Mandrake: The Supreme Court has ruled that when the government opens up public property to private citizens - when it creates a public forum for speech - it cannot discriminate in favor of some viewpoints and against others.

So, STFU about your oppression and the WAR ON CHRISTMAS™ and pack up your nativity scenes and take them somewhere private. I bet your church would let you set up a creche on their property. Why, I bet any number of individuals and businesses would gladly let you set up your displays on their property.

STOP SETTING THIS SHIAT UP ON PUBLIC PROPERTY

While this is all technically correct, I still find it a bit sad. I consider myself agnostic, but I still grew up in a church doing Christmas plays and what not. Nativity scenes are part and parcel of Christmas, just like a Christmas tree, egg nog, turkey and ham dinners, and Christmas music talking about Jesus. Perhaps some or all of these things don't apply to your Christmas, or maybe you don't celebrate or even recognize Christmas in any way, but that doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it.

Nativity scenes inspire warm feelings of remembrance and tradition in many people, and public grounds are a great place to put them because so many people can enjoy them in a common locale. Now the laws are correct, it wouldn't be right to allow a pro-Christ display without allowing an anti-Christ display as well. However I think there should also be some sort of a "don't be a farking asshole" law that judges the intent of such a display or something. A nativity scene is most likely meant to inspire and spread happiness and remembrance, whereas an anti-Christ display would most likely be intended to upset people, or at least not have warm-fuzzies as the reasoning behind it, arguments about indoctrination or whatever regarding a nativity scene aside.

Okay so religion has done a whole lot of bad things. There are assholes that are religious. There are also assholes that are non religious, and ev ...

Chances are you did that stuff in church or at your house. Nobody says you shouldn't.

But the 1st Amendment is simple: if Christians get to put up their stuff on PUBLIC PROPERTY, then so does everyone else.

Lionel Mandrake:Revek: Atheist are trying to convince peaceful people who are not trying to knock on your door that they are right and theist are wrong without having any proof they are right. Sound familiar?

Where is this happening that you can't change the channel or put back the book or walk away from the asshole?

Revek: While you are worrying about them trying to take the science out of schools you should note they usually fail.

And "usually" is good enough for you? Maybe you also noticed that they never get up. And they'll keep on losing...until they win.

ShawnDoc:That's what they did last year, and the local Christian groups made a huge fuss and ended up suing the city, which led to the city cancelling it entirely this year because they were tired of getting shiat on.

What city and how did their officials do in the last election?/just curious

omgwtfetc:Living in Canada, when I (rarely) happen to mention to a religious person that I don't believe there is a God I don't get more than a "meh", so I don't understand why some atheists in the US seem to be so aggressive. But what I understand even less is the attitude that a lot of religious people in the States seem to have towards atheists. If you honestly believe that here is a God who loves you and will accept you into Heaven, but will send all these dirty non-believers to Hell, where is all the anger coming from? Shouldn't there be more pity than condescension, more love than hate? I know that if I believed I knew the ultimate nature of the Universe I'd feel a lot more secure. So... what's up with that?

Christians in America actively lobby the goverment to take freedoms away from other people to force them to follow what Christians believe is their god's laws. They use tax-free money to do this. What's not to love?

HotWingAgenda:Revek: And how is it that the guy who wants in god we trust off the money is any different from the guy who want the nativity scene off the public land. To me, Both assholes. These things don't force you to go to church. They don't force you to believe. If it offends the eye then do not look upon it, My eyes

They're only asking government officials to stop violating the 1st Amendment prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion. It's not about feelings, it's about adherence to the supreme law of the land. How can a non-Christian expect due process at a courthouse covered in Christian labeling? How can I have faith that my government has my best interests in mind, if its very money is printed with a slogan for a religious group that has historically tortured and persecuted members of other religions?

Not that I disagree with the sentiment; but you do realize, don't you, that we have ALWAYS gotten due process at courthouses--including the highest in the land--"covered in Christian labeling." Courthouses that oftener than not dispensed fairly even-handed justice regarding establishment of religion IN FAVOR of no religion at all, while sitting in a big building with "IN GOD WE TRUST" carved on the lintels.

The point being that it's really irrelevant whether the Christian god is invoked at a courthouse, or the Muslim god, or indeed the Norse gods or the Flying Spaghetti Monster--as long as DUE PROCESS is followed inside, which is theoretically religion-free, or should be. A Jewish judge should be able to sit on the bench with In God We Trust on the wall and still be relied upon to dispense justice to the Hindu and Buddhist complainants--and if he can't, then it hardly matters if the courtroom is scrubbed clean of every religious symbol known to man. I don't much care what the outside looks like, I just want to be sure the people inside are adhering to the law--they can practice in a cathedral for all I care, as long as the rule of law is scrupulously followed.

Am I the only one who is ticked off at this guy because he missed an opportunity to do something artsy with their display spots. (A chance that only comes ONCE a year.) Fine, you don't want to do a Nativity scene. Still, there are many families who like to look at the displays for art's sake. Much like the way even if you don't like Halloween, you can still get a kick at seeing how some people go all out on their costumes and decorating their front yard. So, why couldn't Vix do a lovely secular winter scene with Jack Frost and Frosty the Snowman or something similar and say that this way done by such and such Atheist group so all can enjoy it. But, no, Vix just puts up an ugly and very uncreative sign and displays dismissing religion all together. Way to win hearts and minds. I swear, this guy's people skills are of that of a worm. A dead worm.

HotWingAgenda:Revek: And how is it that the guy who wants in god we trust off the money is any different from the guy who want the nativity scene off the public land. To me, Both assholes. These things don't force you to go to church. They don't force you to believe. If it offends the eye then do not look upon it, My eyes

They're only asking government officials to stop violating the 1st Amendment prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion. It's not about feelings, it's about adherence to the supreme law of the land. How can a non-Christian expect due process at a courthouse covered in Christian labeling? How can I have faith that my government has my best interests in mind, if its very money is printed with a slogan for a religious group that has historically tortured and persecuted members of other religions?

You shouldn't have to need faith. You should have law. And not the kind hallucinated out of a talking, flaming bush.

Sorry, I was distracted by thoughts of the most recent "hot redheads" thread.

Revek:Lionel Mandrake: Revek: Atheist are trying to convince peaceful people who are not trying to knock on your door that they are right and theist are wrong without having any proof they are right. Sound familiar?

Where is this happening that you can't change the channel or put back the book or walk away from the asshole?

Revek: While you are worrying about them trying to take the science out of schools you should note they usually fail.

And "usually" is good enough for you? Maybe you also noticed that they never get up. And they'll keep on losing...until they win.

Revek:Lionel Mandrake: Revek: That you seek to tell us all how this unknown thing is this way rather than that way. In this respect you are identical to the theist. And how is it that the guy who wants in god we trust off the money is any different from the guy who want the nativity scene off the public land. To me, Both assholes. These things don't force you to go to church. They don't force you to believe. If it offends the eye then do not look upon it, My eyes see it all with equal doubt and I am not offended.

Boy, you like to generalize don't you?

Atheists are not trying to put non-science into science classes. They are not trying to put up monuments to E=mc2 or the laws of thermodynamics. Atheists do not knock on your door.

Everything an atheist does is easily not read, not watched, not listened to or walked away from.

Atheist are trying to convince peaceful people who are not trying to knock on your door that they are right and theist are wrong without having any proof they are right. Sound familiar? While you are worrying about them trying to take the science out of schools you should note they usually fail. On a bell curve atheist are at one end and the theist are at the other while most are somewhere in between. I find peace is usually in the middle.

Lionel Mandrake:Chances are you did that stuff in church or at your house. Nobody says you shouldn't.

But the 1st Amendment is simple: if Christians get to put up their stuff on PUBLIC PROPERTY, then so does everyone else.

It's very simple. All or nothing.

Yeah I get that. But I also think it's a simplistic and...um...cold? way of looking at it. Putting up an "atheist display" that says "There is no God or heaven" is incredibly dark to somebody that needs to believe that, or using your display to shiat on the nativity scene next door. I guess what I'd be happy with is saying you can put up whatever you want as long as it's not negative or some such thing. Do you see what I'm driving at? I don't want special rights for the Christians or anybody else, but I don't want to see a bunch of people being assholes to each other under the guise of fairness or justice or equal rights either.

WorldCitizen:Put up all the nativity scenes you want on church or private property. It's easy.

Most people wanting to put them up on government property are probably the same who believe government is bad. Get off the government teat and put them up on your own or your church's property.

The venn diagram showing the intersection of people who complain about how the government should stay out of their personal business, the people who think the government should mind other people's personal business and the people who think the government should be a promoter of and enforcer for their religious beliefs and morals is very compacted. And depressing.

I agree wholeheartedly, with the caveat that a democracy (even if it's just a representational republic like ours) withers and dies if the populace does not have faith in the regime. Our government can only continue to survive as long as everyone subscribes to its mechanisms and feels like it is working for their benefit, and not just for the benefit of one faction.

Eddie Ate Dynamite:Lionel Mandrake: Chances are you did that stuff in church or at your house. Nobody says you shouldn't.

But the 1st Amendment is simple: if Christians get to put up their stuff on PUBLIC PROPERTY, then so does everyone else.

It's very simple. All or nothing.

Yeah I get that. But I also think it's a simplistic and...um...cold? way of looking at it. Putting up an "atheist display" that says "There is no God or heaven" is incredibly dark to somebody that needs to believe that, or using your display to shiat on the nativity scene next door. I guess what I'd be happy with is saying you can put up whatever you want as long as it's not negative or some such thing. Do you see what I'm driving at? I don't want special rights for the Christians or anybody else, but I don't want to see a bunch of people being assholes to each other under the guise of fairness or justice or equal rights either.

Eddie Ate Dynamite:Lionel Mandrake: Chances are you did that stuff in church or at your house. Nobody says you shouldn't.

But the 1st Amendment is simple: if Christians get to put up their stuff on PUBLIC PROPERTY, then so does everyone else.

It's very simple. All or nothing.

Yeah I get that. But I also think it's a simplistic and...um...cold? way of looking at it. Putting up an "atheist display" that says "There is no God or heaven" is incredibly dark to somebody that needs to believe that, or using your display to shiat on the nativity scene next door. I guess what I'd be happy with is saying you can put up whatever you want as long as it's not negative or some such thing. Do you see what I'm driving at? I don't want special rights for the Christians or anybody else, but I don't want to see a bunch of people being assholes to each other under the guise of fairness or justice or equal rights either.

Didn't anyone read TFA? The whole reason these "anti-nativity" displays are coming up is because the polite approach (you know, lawsuits to have the nativity removed from public land) was tried and failed.